When did the heresy of using scripture alone first start?

[Lief_Erikson]

I don’t have the book with me, but I would be happy to as soon as I have access to it.

Thanks.
Nicholas II:

The book is available online. It does mention an Epistle of Calvin, but I Still cant find any references telling me where I can find the Epistle of Calvin.

I wonder if we could even dig up the author to get his citation. It’s annoying that the book’s citations aren’t clearer.

 

[crazzeto]

Thanks.

I wonder if we could even dig up the author to get his citation. It’s annoying that the book’s citations aren’t clearer.

The author is dead, but he full bibligraphical note is there. It would be nice if there were better citations.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Okay. Darn.

 

[patrick457]

Not including the Septuingent in the bible is an error, not only do you end up 7 books short you also chage several verses inherently.

That reminds me. The original 1611 edition of the KJV did have all the books and sections contained in the Latin Vulgate (which includes the 7 books in question plus ones which even Catholics consider apocryphal); the KJV Deuterocanon were translated from the Septuagint! I think KJVs printed in the UK still have the books in question, since the translation is under perpetual Crown copyright there.

Note that back then, the common conclusion among scholars (who found many differences between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text) was that the LXX translators made a poor translation from the Hebrew and that the LXX became more corrupt with time. This view would not be challenged and corrected until centuries later, when discovery of earlier manuscripts of the OT led to a reevaluation of both the Masoretic and the Septuagint texts. This, coupled with the increasing preference of using original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts for translations (instead of translations like the LXX or the Vulgate), probably led to the Septuagint being generally ignored and pushed to a corner since according to “popular wisdom” it was inferior to the Hebrew and of ‘little value’.

 

[inkaneer]

James was writing his own book and called it scripture. He says,** “Do you think the scripture speak to no purpose” **in James 4:5. He know’s he is penning something that is inspired by the HS
He calls his own book James, scripture.

No, I’m sorry but James was not calling his own writing scripture. Instead he was referring to the Old Testament scriptures. You will not find one commentary Catholic or Protestant that agrees with your position.

Paul reading the OT the law of God, said** the law is holy, just and good**. He affirms the; holiness and perfection of the Old Testament.

And so do Catholics. So your point is …??? By the way, the OT law is not the OT it is only a small part of the OT.

And John quotes himself as scripture.
John after he pens the letters in Revelation he says **let the churches hear what the Spirit says. **John knew he was writing what the Spirit was saying, not what he was saying.

But did John know his writing would make it into the canon of scripture? I don’t think you can make that argument successfully since before the NT canon was determined the Book of Revelation along with the Epistle to the Hebrews were rejected by more than half the local churches. They denied they were inspired writings. So I think your conclusions are unsupportable.